The refs.....

[Orangeslice13]

Well then, feel free take them and show yourself out.

And to give a partial answer to your question:

1989-1999, 2001, and of course this year come to mind.

I didn't bother to look beyond 1989.

To be fair, that guy was probably born in 2004-05 so.......

 

[york.adamray]

Horrible called game by the refs, granted we have the benefit of at home reply, but the no call against Berry and the call on Bates ?! C'mon man !!!

I missed that penalty called on bates. What happened??

 

[Cdywolfe]

As someone else mentioned, there are 2 different rules 9-1-3 and 9-1-4.

Targeting and Making Forcible Contact With the Crown of the Helmet ARTICLE 3. No player shall target and make forcible contact against an opponent with the crown (top) of his helmet. When in question, it is a foul. (Rule 9-6) (A.R. 9-1-3-I)

http://www.americanfootball.ru/Sport/Rule/2015_football_rules.pdf

The player only has to be defenseless in regards to 9-1-4.

 

[Cdywolfe]

So whether or not it changes the result or not we'll never know but it doesn't change that we should had the ball 1st and 10 around the UT 40 and #12 should've been watching the rest of the game from the locker room. Then they compounded their mistake with the garbage unsportsman like call the next time around.

 

[UT_Tix79]

As someone else mentioned, there are 2 different rules 9-1-3 and 9-1-4.

Targeting and Making Forcible Contact With the Crown of the Helmet ARTICLE 3. No player shall target and make forcible contact against an opponent with the crown (top) of his helmet. When in question, it is a foul. (Rule 9-6) (A.R. 9-1-3-I)

http://www.americanfootball.ru/Sport/Rule/2015_football_rules.pdf

The player only has to be defenseless in regards to 9-1-4.

The rule says AND, not OR, which means both most be true for it to be a penalty, the hit on Berry will never be called, that happens on almost every kick in the history of kick returns...

The call on Bates blocking out of boundswas a crap call

The call on Warrior was the correct call, it was helmet to helmet on a crack back block against player not looking, that's clearly targeting. Had he hit him in the stomach, it would have been a legal hit

 

[VolDaddy61]

I missed that penalty called on bates. What happened??

I believe an unsportsmanlike conduct penalty was called against him against the Aggies' 12th man on a kick-off or punt return. I can't remember what time in the game it occurred, but it was ridiculous !

 

[VolsRule]

a&m was holding the whole game -- the refs were protecting them

 

[AM64]

At this point I've come to believe that they don't call holding anymore

Need to go back to tear away jerseys - pretty obviously a hold if a guy is standing there with laundry in his hands - of course, then there's the dive to the back of the knee left. Time to put back the rules that take the defense out of the game.

 

[shoney]

The rule says AND, not OR, which means both most be true for it to be a penalty, the hit on Berry will never be called, that happens on almost every kick in the history of kick returns...

The call on Bates blocking out of boundswas a crap call

The call on Warrior was the correct call, it was helmet to helmet on a crack back block against player not looking, that's clearly targeting. Had he hit him in the stomach, it would have been a legal hit

I agree with everything you just wrote. The Berry hit will never be targeting, it's just football. That type of play happens a dozen times a game, unfortunately that's why football has the concussion issues.

The Bates call was a terrible call, and the Warrior play was an aggressive play that's considered targeting. Like I wrote earlier, I think they need to stop the ejections and just throw the flag. Ejection is too steep a punishment when the officials are making a judgment on player intent. The game is just too fast.

 

[ClockworkOrange]

I got sick of all the times somebody on the sidelines was blowing a whistle. It happened on several crucial plays. I kept thinking the refs were calling a procedure penalty, then the play would go on like nothing had happened. Caused our guys to hesitate on several plays. One of the biggest was when there were phantom whistles on Knight's long run. Very bush league of the Aggies. Didn't we have enough going against us already?

 

[Cdywolfe]

I agree with everything you just wrote. The Berry hit will never be targeting, it's just football. That type of play happens a dozen times a game, unfortunately that's why football has the concussion issues.

The Bates call was a terrible call, and the Warrior play was an aggressive play that's considered targeting. Like I wrote earlier, I think they need to stop the ejections and just throw the flag. Ejection is too steep a punishment when the officials are making a judgment on player intent. The game is just too fast.

Please reference all these hits where a defender drills an opponent in the head with the crown of his helmet. It shouldn't be to hard, as it apparently happens dozens of times a game.

 

[Cdywolfe]

I agree with everything you just wrote. The Berry hit will never be targeting, it's just football. That type of play happens a dozen times a game, unfortunately that's why football has the concussion issues.

The Bates call was a terrible call, and the Warrior play was an aggressive play that's considered targeting. Like I wrote earlier, I think they need to stop the ejections and just throw the flag. Ejection is too steep a punishment when the officials are making a judgment on player intent. The game is just too fast.

Also the Bates play was definitely targeting. My only complaint is that is that the guy he hit should've been watching the game from the locker room.

 

[UT_Tix79]

Also the Bates play was definitely targeting. My only complaint is that is that the guy he hit should've been watching the game from the locker room.

The Bates play was where he pushed #12 out of bounds and was a terrible call

 

[otis72]

i seen at least 3.....but they only called it us....but 5/6 turnovers didnt help none

 

[Cdywolfe]

The Bates play was where he pushed #12 out of bounds and was a terrible call

My bad... I was thinking about the Warrior ejection.

 

[UT_Tix79]

My bad... I was thinking about the Warrior ejection.

Warrior was trying to make a play, and I hate that penalty, but by the letter of the law it was correct.

Bates penalty was absurd for the refs to call.

The hit on Berry I think was clean. The 2nd hit while he was on the ground was a little iffy, but maybe that's just the orange colored glasses and not that the A&M guy was trying to make a play.

I think the refs missed tons of holds and PI, seems like we held more and didn't get called and they had more PI not get called.

Overall, we went on the road, against the #8 team in the country, committed 7 turnovers, tons of penalties, lost several players to injuries, and spotted them a 28-7 lead, and still almost won. While I'm not happy with the outcome, we fought our hearts out, and almost pulled it out

 

[Cdywolfe]

Warrior was trying to make a play, and I hate that penalty, but by the letter of the law it was correct.

Bates penalty was absurd for the refs to call.

The hit on Berry I think was clean. The 2nd hit while he was on the ground was a little iffy, but maybe that's just the orange colored glasses and not that the A&M guy was trying to make a play.

I think the refs missed tons of holds and PI, seems like we held more and didn't get called and they had more PI not get called.

Overall, we went on the road, against the #8 team in the country, committed 7 turnovers, tons of penalties, lost several players to injuries, and spotted them a 28-7 lead, and still almost won. While I'm not happy with the outcome, we fought our hearts out, and almost pulled it out

I agree about the Warrior hit. I don't necessary like it but it was called correct. I'm severely conflicted regarding the targeting rules. Obviously anyway that we can increase player safety I'm all for. With that said, I feel like at least 4 out of 5 targeting penalties are both unintentional and unavoidable. So, for the most part, the hits are still occurring. It's really just neutering defenses in the process.

 

[12GAGE]

Volnation,can someone tell me why if leading with the helmet is targeting,how can running backs lead with helmets hitting defenders? There have been numerous times already that A/M has hit with helmets and no calls. At this point,we are being way outphysicaled.

Can someone please inform me why? When TN fumbled at the two and the A&M player was hit and tackled in the end-zone, it wasn't called a safety. The player was not down at the two.

 

[UT_Tix79]

I agree about the Warrior hit. I don't necessary like it but it was called correct. I'm severely conflicted regarding the targeting rules. Obviously anyway that we can increase player safety I'm all for. With that said, I feel like at least 4 out of 5 targeting penalties are both unintentional and unavoidable. So, for the most part, the hits are still occurring. It's really just neutering defenses in the process.

Yeah, I hate targeting when it's just a player trying to make a play and the hit seems unavoidable. I was watching the FSU/Miami game tonight and the Miami LB hit FSU's QB like 2 sec late, and with a hit directly to the head, blatantly dirty, and targeting wasn't called...it's so subjective it's frustrating.

 

[Cdywolfe]

Can someone please inform me why? When TN fumbled at the two and the A&M player was hit and tackled in the end-zone, it wasn't called a safety. The player was not down at the two.

I'll admit it was iffy. I initially thought he was knocked back into the end zone, but after seeing it a few times I'm not thoroughly convinced he didn't step back into the end zone on his own. With that said, when it comes to safeties the offense (or team with the possession of the ball, as in this case it was A&M's defense) is always going to get the benefit of the doubt.

 

[ImLoco4Vols]

My only real issue with the refs was the constant false starts that weren't called on aTm. Almost every play, the OT going against DB moved early. It was obvious in the stadium. If I'm wrong, please tell me. But we could see it and booed accordingly.

 

[12GAGE]

I'll admit it was iffy. I initially thought he was knocked back into the end zone, but after seeing it a few times I'm not thoroughly convinced he didn't step back into the end zone on his own. With that said, when it comes to safeties the offense (or team with the possession of the ball, as in this case it was A&M's defense) is always going to get the benefit of the doubt.

He actually ran back into the end zone on his on, just saying. They never replayed it or said anything about it, so I was wondering if its a rule or if they called him down at the two.

 

[vol-un-tear]

SEC refs blow! League office is a joke! They have been for years. Nothing will change and there will continue to be zero accountability.

 

[otis72]

i seen at lest 6.....3 for sure head shots that didnt het called by a/m........pisses me off...2 of them should be fired,,,,the refs.. yet they always call it on us

 

[otis72]

i seen 5 pass interfence/6 hold calls......never got called.....nuts?